Fine
as long as you don't mind giving up the song - Part 7 of the terms and conditions say :

7. Grant of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor,
its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and
advertising and promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive,
royalty-free, unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store,
copy, transmit, publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in
connection with the Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest. Upon Sponsor's request,
winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to license or assign all
right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, all copyrights
associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.

Quote Gone To Lunch:Upon
Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to
license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without
limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth
above.

So I guess the
workaround would be to take receipt of the WAV under the pretext that you want to listen
to the end product to see if you are happy. Then don't sign anything...?

Quote Gone To Lunch:Upon
Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to
license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without
limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth
above.

So I guess the
workaround would be to take receipt of the WAV under the pretext that you want to listen
to the end product to see if you are happy. Then don't sign anything...?

@ Ken that assumes that the 'winner' is not
obliged to assign rights. I am not so sure this is the case. By entering the competition,
you are accepting the T&C, part of which is just such an undertaking. Effectively,
you're buying a lottery ticket the price of which is royalty free use of your song in
perpetuity and, for the winners, giving-up ownership in return for £6K of Avid gear.

Quote Gone To Lunch:7. Grant of
Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and
promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit,
publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the
Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to
enter into an unspecified and as yet unwritten contract with a third party that is not
party to that contract.

Quote Gone To
Lunch:Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal
forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the
Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for
the Prizes set forth above.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to sign further contracts
that are as yet totally unspecified, with unnamed and unknown parties and whose terms have
not been agreed upon.

(The above applies to US, UK and rest of EU. I am sure
that it would also be true for most other jurisdictions.)

In other words, the
terms and conditions are completely bogus and utterly unenforceable.

No
lawyer drafted that rubbish, not just because of the above, but also because it is stuffed
full of commas that make some meanings ambiguous. It also contains the word 'designees'
and the meaning is often contested. A better word would have been the more understandable
'appointees.'

Quote Gone To Lunch:7. Grant
of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and
promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit,
publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the
Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to
enter into an unspecified and as yet unwritten contract with a third party that is not
party to that contract.

Quote Gone To
Lunch:Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal
forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the
Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for
the Prizes set forth above.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to sign further contracts
that are as yet totally unspecified, with unnamed and unknown parties and whose terms have
not been agreed upon.

(The above applies to US, UK and rest of EU. I am sure
that it would also be true for most other jurisdictions.)

In other words, the
terms and conditions are completely bogus and utterly unenforceable.

There is a legal precedent in that a
pre contract Letter Of Undertaking (or certainly elements thereof) can be enforced. I
would not like to rely on a perceived inability to enforce these terms as a potential
defence. Bottom line is, if your copyright is important to you - don't enter.

Quote Phil O:There is a legal
precedent in that a pre contract Letter Of Undertaking (or certainly elements thereof) can
be enforced.

Of course! A
LoU is a type of contract, as indeed are terms and conditions. These are all types of
contracts. A LoU is an agreement between named parties to negotiate terms and become
signatories to a contract, whose outline conditions are known and understood by the
signatories to the LoU. The nonsense above is not enforceable, because the terms and
conditions involve duties and obligations by non-signatories who are not even named and
also try to oblige an unequal party (i.e. the applicant) to sign contracts whose terms are
not even outlined.

The term 'unequal party' refers to a contract between a
business and a private person. It is assumed that a business has access to legal advice
and may even have drafted the agreement. For that reason, such contracts (to be binding)
have to have a clause obliging the private person to access legal advice, so that they
fully understand the agreement and all implications of the agreement. As no such
obligation is placed upon the applicant, that is yet another reason the whole thing is a
pile of dog-crap.

Quote Gone To Lunch:7. Grant
of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and
promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit,
publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the
Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to
enter into an unspecified and as yet unwritten contract with a third party that is not
party to that contract.

Quote Gone To
Lunch:Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal
forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the
Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for
the Prizes set forth above.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to sign further contracts
that are as yet totally unspecified, with unnamed and unknown parties and whose terms have
not been agreed upon.

(The above applies to US, UK and rest of EU. I am sure
that it would also be true for most other jurisdictions.)

In other words, the
terms and conditions are completely bogus and utterly unenforceable.

No
lawyer drafted that rubbish, not just because of the above, but also because it is stuffed
full of commas that make some meanings ambiguous. It also contains the word 'designees'
and the meaning is often contested. A better word would have been the more understandable
'appointees.'

Probably part
of the end result of "Lindisfarne v. CBS". A one sided contract is not binding. One side
has no chance to change the terms. Means nothing and probably part of a scam.

--------------------Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Quote Gone To Lunch:7. Grant
of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant Sponsor, its subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and
promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit,
publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the
Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to
enter into an unspecified and as yet unwritten contract with a third party that is not
party to that contract.

Quote Gone To
Lunch:Upon Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal
forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the
Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for
the Prizes set forth above.

You cannot enforce a contract that requires one of the parties to sign further contracts
that are as yet totally unspecified, with unnamed and unknown parties and whose terms have
not been agreed upon.

(The above applies to US, UK and rest of EU. I am sure
that it would also be true for most other jurisdictions.)

In other words, the
terms and conditions are completely bogus and utterly unenforceable.

No
lawyer drafted that rubbish, not just because of the above, but also because it is stuffed
full of commas that make some meanings ambiguous. It also contains the word 'designees'
and the meaning is often contested. A better word would have been the more understandable
'appointees.'

Quote:Now they have a
fantastic track with which to promote themselves with, and if you can consistently write
great songs, then losing the rights to one song is surely a worthy cost, for some of
course.

That's obviously
their free choice and the wisdom of it remains to be seen. It does look a bit like
"nothing for something" to me and undermines any idea of a working relationship. But good
luck to them, if the songs are good maybe they wouldn't have needed the treatment. Let's
hope that wasn't their only good one.

Quote:Now
they have a fantastic track with which to promote themselves with, and if you can
consistently write great songs, then losing the rights to one song is surely a worthy
cost, for some of course.

That's obviously their free choice and the wisdom of it remains to be seen. It does look
a bit like "nothing for something" to me and undermines any idea of a working
relationship. But good luck to them, if the songs are good maybe they wouldn't have needed
the treatment. Let's hope that wasn't their only good one.

This rather neatly captures the reason I
started the thread.

The competion ad is all about your great song, and walking
in the shadows of all our heroes who have recorded there, but the small print reveals that
the price of this fantasy is giving up your song.

When the winners have to buy
food, pay the gas and lecky, top up the phone card, shoes for the kids etc they will not
be able to use their shaky Abbey Rd association as currency.

It is in essence
another X-factor/svengali fantasy that 'exposure' will create 'success', like the play
live for free scam.

Quote:Now
they have a fantastic track with which to promote themselves with, and if you can
consistently write great songs, then losing the rights to one song is surely a worthy
cost, for some of course.

That's obviously their free choice and the wisdom of it remains to be seen. It does look
a bit like "nothing for something" to me and undermines any idea of a working
relationship. But good luck to them, if the songs are good maybe they wouldn't have needed
the treatment. Let's hope that wasn't their only good one.

This rather neatly captures the reason I
started the thread.

The competion ad is all about your great song, and walking
in the shadows of all our heroes who have recorded there, but the small print reveals that
the price of this fantasy is giving up your song.

When the winners have to buy
food, pay the gas and lecky, top up the phone card, shoes for the kids etc they will not
be able to use their shaky Abbey Rd association as currency.

It is in essence
another X-factor/svengali fantasy that 'exposure' will create 'success', like the play
live for free scam.

That
kind of shitty attitude never really gets you anywhere to be honest. If you always expect
everything to be a scam, it will be. If you expect success, its far more likely to be just
around the corner imo.

Quote:Now
they have a fantastic track with which to promote themselves with, and if you can
consistently write great songs, then losing the rights to one song is surely a worthy
cost, for some of course.

That's obviously their free choice and the wisdom of it remains to be seen. It does look
a bit like "nothing for something" to me and undermines any idea of a working
relationship. But good luck to them, if the songs are good maybe they wouldn't have needed
the treatment. Let's hope that wasn't their only good one.

This rather neatly captures the reason I
started the thread.

The competion ad is all about your great song, and walking
in the shadows of all our heroes who have recorded there, but the small print reveals that
the price of this fantasy is giving up your song.

When the winners have to buy
food, pay the gas and lecky, top up the phone card, shoes for the kids etc they will not
be able to use their shaky Abbey Rd association as currency.

It is in essence
another X-factor/svengali fantasy that 'exposure' will create 'success', like the play
live for free scam.

That
kind of shitty attitude never really gets you anywhere to be honest. If you always expect
everything to be a scam, it will be. If you expect success, its far more likely to be just
around the corner imo.

I
don't agree that paying attention to copyright issues is a 'shitty attitude'.

If I succeed in creating a successful track, I would like to receive money for it,
rather than a 1-off Abbey Road on-line mastering job. A Pro-tools rig might be a good
prize for some, but not me...

I
don't agree that paying attention to copyright issues is a 'shitty attitude'.

If I succeed in creating a successful track, I would like to receive money for it,
rather than a 1-off Abbey Road on-line mastering job. A Pro-tools rig might be a good
prize for some, but not me...

If you are at the stage where you think that an Abbey Road mastering sessions is all you
need for success you've got a hell of a long road ahead. Take all the help you can get.

I am sure that I have never
said an Abbey Road mastering session is all I need for success.

In fact, one of
the reasons I started the thread was that I personally doubt its relevance, to me at
least, and would prefer to retain control of my copyrights until it is advantageous for me
to assign or license them.

And I also acknowledged that for others, a pro
tools rig might be worth it.

I am sure that, what at first appears to be fairly onerous T & C, are really just a
rather clumsy attempt to protect the corporations behind this from licensing issues
surrounding use of any recording for promotional purposes. It is, after all, just that i.e
a competition designed to promote the services of both Abbey Road and Avid. The interests
of those corporations clearly take precedence over the song writer / artist.

The impression I get is that if the entry is good enough to win this competition, then
it's probably worth holding onto the copyright and somehow finding the resources to make
the best recording possible.

Quote Phil O:I am sure that,
what at first appears to be fairly onerous T & C, are really just a rather clumsy
attempt to protect the corporations behind this from licensing issues surrounding use of
any recording for promotional purposes. It is, after all, just that i.e a competition
designed to promote the services of both Abbey Road and Avid. The interests of those
corporations clearly take precedence over the song writer / artist.

The
impression I get is that if the entry is good enough to win this competition, then it's
probably worth holding onto the copyright and somehow finding the resources to make the
best recording possible.

Yes....

But to me there is something irritating about this blanket assumption
that the composer's rights are there to be taken or steam rollered as a matter of
course....not unlike the whole 'play for free for exposure' scam.....as if we don't need
to make any money...

Personally I blame those Cliff Richard films in the early
60s where fully rehearsed orchestras and dancers just happened to be in the coffee bar,
and Top of the Pops in the 70s when no one needed any gear. They just make the public
think that music just happens without any expense, and now even Abbey Road and AVID are on
the bandwagon. Sick.